NationStates Jolt Archive

"As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. ... It is a common misfortunate that awaits our State constitution, as well as all others." --Alexander Hamilton

Please discuss. :)

alexander hamilton knew all this shit was going to happen (relatively): industrialization and all that jazz.

and guess which framer mistrusted people: hamilton

Please before you all freak, realize that he means republican as pertaining to a republic. Republicans didn't even exist back then. The closest thing was the federalist party.

Please before you all freak, realize that he means republican as pertaining to a republic. Republicans didn't even exist back then. The closest thing was the federalist party.
i didnt even bother reading the quote. but im sure thats how eutrusca means it knowing him

I am sick and tired of people saying we live in a democracy. We live in a REPUBLIC. True democracy would be pretty darn impractical IMO.

I am sick and tired of people saying we live in a democracy. We live in a REPUBLIC. True democracy would be pretty darn impractical IMO.
actually, a democratic republic

Too bad he didn't see the bullet! :P

Well I am not sure. I don't know of many people that apply the label of virture on the wealthy. Great wealth is hard to obtain if you are a "nice" person. In fact, most that achieve it are out right bastards(ie. the rail barrons).

I am sick and tired of people saying we live in a democracy. We live in a REPUBLIC. True democracy would be pretty darn impractical IMO.
A Republic just means no Monarchy, hence, Brits that don't support the Monarchy are called republicans.

He needed only look back on the ancient Romans to see what would happen to our republic.

The point is we are not a democracy, at least not completely. A true democracy would be horrible because people all over the country would be voting on issues they knew little about. (Ex: a New Yorker voting on cotton tariffs.) Instead we elect a handful to the specific job of making law so that they are able to specialize in political matters and make sound choices for us. Whether they are actaully doing that or not is debatable. I personally think that we need to do something to light a fire under Congess' ass. :sniper:

PS: I believe the specific term is representative democracy.

actually, a democratic republic

actually, were more of a federal republic with a strong democratic tradition.

thats if you want to get all technical, i personally dont care what you refer to it as.

The point is we are not a democracy, at least not completely. A true democracy would be horrible because people all over the country would be voting on issues they knew little about. (Ex: a New Yorker voting on cotton tariffs.) Instead we elect a handful to the specific job of making law so that they are able to specialize in political matters and make sound choices for us. Whether they are actaully doing that or not is debatable. I personally think that we need to do something to light a fire under Congess' ass. :sniper:

PS: I believe the specific ter mis representative democracy.

That's only one type of democracy. Whilst I wouldn't say America is a democracy either, you are only describing one form of it (which I suppose could be considered a strawman).

I may as well claim that Britian isn't a Monarchy because it is completly different to Philip II's Spain

Looks like a warning to me: Everything goes to pot if a great deal of wealth is accumulated by the few (and denied to the rest).

Too bad he didn't see the bullet! :P

Well I am not sure. I don't know of many people that apply the label of virture on the wealthy. Great wealth is hard to obtain if you are a "nice" person. In fact, most that achieve it are out right bastards(ie. the rail barrons).
I'd be willing to bet that there are far more people who are nice anc wealthy than there are asshats. In fact, I'd bet the proportion is the exact same as the rest of society. :)

The point is we are not a democracy, at least not completely. A true democracy would be horrible because people all over the country would be voting on issues they knew little about. (Ex: a New Yorker voting on cotton tariffs.) Instead we elect a handful to the specific job of making law so that they are able to specialize in political matters and make sound choices for us. Whether they are actaully doing that or not is debatable. I personally think that we need to do something to light a fire under Congess' ass. :sniper:

PS: I believe the specific term is representative democracy.
i dunno where you been but we have ALOT of people voting for shit they dont know about

That's only one type of democracy. Whilst I wouldn't say America is a democracy either, you are only describing one form of it (which I suppose could be considered a strawman).

I may as well claim that Britian isn't a Monarchy because it is completly different to Philip II's Spain

That was the origin of the idea, though. Everyone gets a voice. In our system we simply cede our voice to those whom are of our choosing.

i dunno where you been but we have ALOT of people voting for shit they dont know about

Exactly, imagine how much worse it would be, if every little thing was decided by the populus.

That was the origin of the idea, though. Everyone gets a voice. In our system we simply cede our voice to those whom are of our choosing.
Yes, that is another form of democracy (as you rightly put it Representative Democracy, which again there are pleanty of variations on).

yeah, were are offically a federal republic (for anyone who cares)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Exactly, imagine how much worse it would be, if every little thing was decided by the populus.
too much is decided by the populous as it is, especially at the local level (or at least here)

yeah, were are offically a federal republic (for anyone who cares)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
Just to preempt charges of "Wikipedia is shit"

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

" Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition"

too much is decided by the populous as it is, especially at the local level (or at least here)
I'd rather my immediate community to be part of the decision makers rather then some petty politician hundreds/thousands of miles away

Just to preempt charges of "Wikipedia is shit"

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

" Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition"

thats where i got the orignal from, i just wanted to find one people didnt have to sort though.. and why is wikipedia "shit"?

thats where i got the orignal from, i just wanted to find one people didnt have to sort though.. and why is wikipedia "shit"?
No idea, but quite a few people think so.

I'd rather my immediate community to be part of the decision makers rather then some petty politician hundreds/thousands of miles away
our state isnt that big the capital is only a couple hours, but no, people are stupid and vote uninformedly or biased by bullshit lies, they need to vote for who to put in office, then be kept out of it

Looks like a warning to me: Everything goes to pot if a great deal of wealth is accumulated by the few (and denied to the rest).

is it denied to the rest? or are the rest simply not trying hard enough to gain wealth? or not smart enough? or lucky enough?

i doubt hamilton would espouse socialism and its sick offspring, the forced redistribution of wealth.

our state isnt that big the capital is only a couple hours, but no, people are stupid and vote uninformedly or biased by bullshit lies, they need to vote for who to put in office, then be kept out of it
There seems to be a bit of double think here.

1. People are too stupid or uninformed to be capable to deciding on things themselves.
2. People are smart and informed enough to choose representatives who are smart and informed enough to be capable to decide things.

There seems to be a bit of double think here.

1. People are too stupid or uninformed to be capable to deciding on things themselves.
2. People are smart and informed enough to choose representatives who are smart and informed enough to be capable to decide things.
not exactly

they arnt smart enough for either, but i trust the people elcted are smart enough to actually do something intelligent, a person is smart, people are stupid

not exactly

they arnt smart enough for either, but i trust the people elcted are smart enough to actually do something intelligent, a person is smart, people are stupid
So what makes them smart enough (ie smart enough to select rationally rather then smart) to choose people capable. And how are they trust worthy enough to choose properly?

So what makes them smart enough (ie smart enough to select rationally rather then smart) to choose people capable. And how are they trust worthy enough to choose properly?
they arnt, thats the damn point, but as long as we are under a representative system we have to pick representatives, peopel are too damn to choose for themselves, but they have to choose representatives, i hope the REPRESENTATIVES are trustworthy enoguh to get smart, im not talking about the damn people

is it denied to the rest? or are the rest simply not trying hard enough to gain wealth? or not smart enough? or lucky enough?

i doubt hamilton would espouse socialism and its sick offspring, the forced redistribution of wealth.

Gentlemen, we have a pitch-perfect example of what Hamilton was decrying when he talked about the conflation of virtue and wealth: the wealthy must be virtuous because they have money, and by extension, the poor must lack it because they are poor.

Nevermind, for instance, that your average family farmer today works 60+ hours a week, is more productive than any other farmer at any time in history, and yet still survives only because of the sick "forced redistribution of wealth." That would violate our theory of poor=lazy, and therefore it must be ignored.

Its hit and miss really. You just have to hope that a few of the guys that get in there are worth a shit. And I agree that a person is smart and people are stupid. America has one of the worst mob mentalities of any nation.

Its hit and miss really. You just have to hope that a few of the guys that get in there are worth a shit. And I agree that a person is smart and people are stupid. America has one of the worst mob mentalities of any nation.
So when do a group of persons become 'people?'

they arnt, thats the damn point, but as long as we are under a representative system we have to pick representatives, peopel are too damn to choose for themselves, but they have to choose representatives, i hope the REPRESENTATIVES are trustworthy enoguh to get smart, im not talking about the damn people
So people aren't smart enough or trustworthy enough to select their representatives then?

Representatives are people too.

Gentlemen, we have a pitch-perfect example of what Hamilton was decrying when he talked about the conflation of virtue and wealth: the wealthy must be virtuous because they have money, and by extension, the poor must lack it because they are poor.

Nevermind, for instance, that your average family farmer today works 60+ hours a week, is more productive than any other farmer at any time in history, and yet still survives only because of the sick "forced redistribution of wealth." That would violate our theory of poor=lazy, and therefore it must be ignored.

A friend of mine got married recently. His wife had been a social worker for 20 years. I asked her how many of the families that came in were actually trying to dig themselves out of the hole. Out of all that time, she could only remember 1 or 2. Sure there are people who bust there as and don't have to much to show for it. Just as there are people who don't do anything and get freaking rich. But the trend is against both of these things.

So people aren't smart enough or trustworthy enough to select their representatives then?

Representatives are people too.
im not going to carry on a conversation with some one who refuses to take a clue

A friend of mine got married recently. His wife had been a social worker for 20 years. I asked her how many of the families that came in were actually trying to dig themselves out of the hole. Out of all that time, she could only remember 1 or 2. Sure there are people who bust there as and don't have to much to show for it. Just as there are people who don't do anything and get freaking rich. But the trend is against both of these things.
social workers? which ones re those, because when i think social worker i think of the uncheckable dipshits here that go around taking away peoples kids and are above the law (LITERALLY), though i could be wrong

So people aren't smart enough or trustworthy enough to select their representatives then?

Representatives are people too.

But they are smaller group than the entire nation. There for, individual actions are more likely to be called out. The larger the group, the asier for mob mentality to occur b/c the individual person doesn't feel as responsible for what occurs.

Looks like a warning to me: Everything goes to pot if a great deal of wealth is accumulated by the few (and denied to the rest).

is it denied to the rest? or are the rest simply not trying hard enough to gain wealth? or not smart enough? or lucky enough?

i doubt hamilton would espouse socialism and its sick offspring, the forced redistribution of wealth.

Lack of opportunity = denial. If the opportunity to gain wealth is lacking, and people lose hope and stop dreaming about making it big (be it through hard work, luck, education, gambling, marrying well, or whatever), things go to pot. I'm not saying Alexander would support socialism, but he certainly issued a warning about the concentration of wealth among the few. Take it as you will.

social workers? which ones re those, because when i think social worker i think of the uncheckable dipshits here that go around taking away peoples kids and are above the law (LITERALLY), though i could be wrong

If you're implying my friend's wife is a dipshit, I can assure you shes not. She devoted that much of her life to trying to hel the poor and needy. Think before you generalize.

im not going to carry on a conversation with some one who refuses to take a clue
So you finish with an insult? :confused:

Please, I have no idea why just because a person is removed from one crowd to be put in another they are endowed with with better intelect that they have then when they are in the first crowd.

Or how people, being stupid, are capable with being given the job to select people to be put in the latter group.

Gentlemen, we have a pitch-perfect example of what Hamilton was decrying when he talked about the conflation of virtue and wealth: the wealthy must be virtuous because they have money, and by extension, the poor must lack it because they are poor.

Nevermind, for instance, that your average family farmer today works 60+ hours a week, is more productive than any other farmer at any time in history, and yet still survives only because of the sick "forced redistribution of wealth." That would violate our theory of poor=lazy, and therefore it must be ignored.

Excellent example, Xenophobialand. This is the kind of attitude towards the working class that drives young people away from farming and trades.

So you finish with an insult? :confused:

Please, I have no idea why just because a person is removed from one crowd to be put in another they are endowed with with better intelect that they have then when they are in the first crowd.

Or how people, being stupid, are capable with being given the job to select people to be put in the latter group.
when seperated from the people, a person is able to think differently in some regards and the idiocy of the general populace wont effect decisions that fuck up the rest of us

But they are smaller group than the entire nation.

So is a local community. In fact, some of them are smaller then the Houses of Parliament/Congress/whatever. Surely then they should be capable of running their own communities.

There for, individual actions are more likely to be called out. The larger the group, the asier for mob mentality to occur b/c the individual person doesn't feel as responsible for what occurs.

True, but you are assuming I am suggesting a direct democratic system to be implemented on a national scale. Which would be very stupid imo.

Lack of opportunity = denial. If the opportunity to gain wealth is lacking, and people lose hope and stop dreaming about making it big (be it through hard work, luck, education, gambling, marrying well, or whatever), things go to pot. I'm not saying Alexander would support socialism, but he certainly issued a warning about the concentration of wealth among the few. Take it as you will.

Certainly a capitalist system must have certain restaints. 1929 proved that, I believe. However redistribution of wealth doesn't make everyone happy. It just ensures that everyone is unhappy. You take away someones money you deny them one of the unalienable rights listed in the DOI, the pursuit of happiness. Money doesn't necessarily buy happines, but it can put you in a comfortable position from which you search for happiness more easily. Btw, some of those 60 hr a week farmers are the most happy, content people you will meet.

when seperated from the people, a person is able to think differently in some regards and the idiocy of the general populace wont effect decisions that fuck up the rest of us
But they are put with another group of people. Why is this second group of people more resistent to mob idealism (for want of a better term).

When you elect someone, they don't get put in a room by themselves to do shit, they are put with another group of people, which admittedly may be split along certain lines (just like the wider society), but havre also been known to follow the crowd.

So is a local community. In fact, some of them are smaller then the Houses of Parliament/Congress/whatever. Surely then they should be capable of running their own communities.



True, but you are assuming I am suggesting a direct democratic system to be implemented on a national scale. Which would be very stupid imo.

I think that local communities should cede more power to the people than the natgov. I have no problem with that. Council members are still necessary, b/c it would still be pretty impractical to have everybody vote on everything, but I think local elections are pretty good. I also think the natgov and the stategov should probably leave more decisions up to the community.

Gentlemen, we have a pitch-perfect example of what Hamilton was decrying when he talked about the conflation of virtue and wealth: the wealthy must be virtuous because they have money, and by extension, the poor must lack it because they are poor.

Nevermind, for instance, that your average family farmer today works 60+ hours a week, is more productive than any other farmer at any time in history, and yet still survives only because of the sick "forced redistribution of wealth." That would violate our theory of poor=lazy, and therefore it must be ignored.

my problem was with the word "denied"... as if someone is able to say, "No, you can't go out and make money."

In this country people can go out and do great things for themselves. But they must CHOOSE to do it... choose to put forth the effort, meet the necessary demands. And it helps to have intelligence and luck.

The farmers of whom you speak -- most, anyway -- probably chose farming.

But I digress. I was mostly venting about those who have kids to make money... those who are able who choose to do nothing and bitch whenever anyone would deny them their "right" to pick others' pockets by way of socialist policies.

I've got it. IQ testing at the polls. If they don't beat 100, they don't vote. :p

The farmers of whom you speak -- most, anyway -- probably chose farming.

Only in the same way Elizabeth chose to be Queen

But they are put with another group of people. Why is this second group of people more resistent to mob idealism (for want of a better term).

When you elect someone, they don't get put in a room by themselves to do shit, they are put with another group of people, which admittedly may be split along certain lines (just like the wider society), but havre also been known to follow the crowd.
i am done with you

I think that local communities should cede more power to the people than the natgov. I have no problem with that. Council members are still necessary, b/c it would still be pretty impractical to have everybody vote on everything, but I think local elections are pretty good. I also think the natgov and the stategov should probably leave more decisions up to the community.

Well I broadly agree with you. Although I'm not going to pedantically go through the minutia of what I think :D

i am done with you

Shame, I was having fun. Any particular reason?

Well I broadly agree with you. Although I'm not going to pedantically go through the minutia of what I think :D



Shame, I was having fun. Any particular reason?you ask the same question repeatedly, yet i answer it. i rather have 100 people from a 100 different reasons with a huge split between them duke it out on issues then a large bunch of idiots that make up the populace decide what is good or bad for th e rest of us, im pretty sure no one voted for the populace to make decisions for the other part of the populace

actually, a democratic republic


It stopped being a democratic republic after the 2000 election.

Only in the same way Elizabeth chose to be Queen

I'll have to call you on this one. Many farmers I know wish to be so b/c they either enjoy it or grew up with it. Not b/c they had to.

It stopped being a democratic republic after the 2000 election.

I forgot. Bush is the evil dicator who probes our thoughts and smothers babies in their sleep. WooOOOoooOOooh! :rolleyes:

PS: If you really want an example of President who was basically a dicator, see Andrew Jackson.

i am done with you

A fact for which I'm sure Conceptionalists is extremely grateful. :D

you ask the same question repeatedly, yet i answer it. i rather have 100 people from a 100 different reasons with a huge split between them duke it out on issues then a large bunch of idiots that make up the populace decide what is good or bad for th e rest of us, im pretty sure no one voted for the populace to make decisions for the other part of the populace

Ah! Now I understand what your problem is: you're just an "elitist wannabe!" :D

Ah! Now I understand what your problem is: you're just an "elitist wannabe!" :D
as opposed to thinking i already am an elitist?

as opposed to thinking i already am an elitist?

But of course! There are three degrees in this spectrum:

1. Elitist wannabe

2. Self-deluded elitist

3. Actual elitist

You're just beginning. Hang in there! I, among others, have every confidence in your ability to become a full-fleged elitist when you grow up. :D

But of course! There are three degrees in this spectrum:

1. Elitist wannabe

2. Self-deluded elitist

3. Actual elitist

You're just beginning. Hang in there! I, among others, have every confidence in your ability to become a full-fleged elitist when you grow up. :D
your on number 2 right

your on number 2 right

Nope. After many years of struggle, I am now totally "elitist-attitude" free! :D

Please before you all freak, realize that he means republican as pertaining to a republic. Republicans didn't even exist back then. The closest thing was the federalist party.
Thanks genius, you're not the only smart one here. I think most of us can figure that out for ourselves. If you're that paranoid about people thinking negatively about your party, then maybe something acutually is wrong with it and they are right to 'freak'.

Certainly a capitalist system must have certain restaints. 1929 proved that, I believe. However redistribution of wealth doesn't make everyone happy. It just ensures that everyone is unhappy. You take away someones money you deny them one of the unalienable rights listed in the DOI, the pursuit of happiness. Money doesn't necessarily buy happines, but it can put you in a comfortable position from which you search for happiness more easily. Btw, some of those 60 hr a week farmers are the most happy, content people you will meet.

Where did I advocate redistribution of wealth? (I didn't in this thread, but I don't deny that social security and welfare can be good things.) Nor did I say anything happiness. I simply pointed out that Alexander Hamilton's statement sounded eerily like a warning to me, and that if lack of opportunity killed people's dreams of improving their lot in life through legal means, they may turn to illegal or immoral means.

As for farmers, in my experience as a farmer's daughter, you worked from can see to can't, and sometimes in the dark as well. We put in well over 60 hours per week, and certainly didn't earn the money or respect our efforts would have entitled us to if we had university degrees and tech jobs (for example). Doesn't mean we weren't happy much of the time. Doesn't mean we weren't unhappy. When farm families are always in stress because they might lose the farm and people look down on you because you're poor, and no one pays for the true cost of producing food, the least those of you who are benefitting from the farmer's labour can do is not complain when the government lends farmers a helping hand when times are tough.

(Do note I'm not talking about factory or corporate farms, or bloody tobacco growers.)

you ask the same question repeatedly, yet i answer it. i rather have 100 people from a 100 different reasons with a huge split between them duke it out on issues then a large bunch of idiots that make up the populace decide what is good or bad for th e rest of us, im pretty sure no one voted for the populace to make decisions for the other part of the populace
Was that because you kept on repeating first or I did?

Nope. After many years of struggle, I am now totally "elitist-attitude" free! :D
you have reached stage 3 i see

my problem was with the word "denied"... as if someone is able to say, "No, you can't go out and make money."

In this country people can go out and do great things for themselves. But they must CHOOSE to do it... choose to put forth the effort, meet the necessary demands. And it helps to have intelligence and luck.

The farmers of whom you speak -- most, anyway -- probably chose farming.

But I digress. I was mostly venting about those who have kids to make money... those who are able who choose to do nothing and bitch whenever anyone would deny them their "right" to pick others' pockets by way of socialist policies.

What exactly do you think the modern food services sector does to farmers today? Perhaps you are unaware of how your food is grown, so I'll give you a brief rundown.

In the spring, a farmer buys his seed at ridiculous prices from Monsanto. He does this because Monsanto isolated a gene that produces necessary amino acids in most plant species, then devised a means of destroying that process in a chemical spray (Roundup), then genetically engineered farm crops that don't have this weakness (i.e. they build the same amino acid slightly differently, so Roundup doesn't kill them). Congress agreed with Monsanto that because of this hard effort, they therefore own a "patent" on the seed, and can charge whatever they want for it. Now, I suppose you could say that farmers have a "choice" in the matter, as they could get regular seed, but this runs the risk of ruining the crop through weed infestation, and your average Joe Farmer is, because of the high initial investment for the land, the seed, the machinery, etc., needed to make his farm run, as well as the low rate of return, is usually one bad crop away from losing his farm (which will then be auctioned off to Monsanto, Con-Agra, ADM, etc.). So his choice is really one of bending over the barrel for Monsanto, or getting picked clean by the bank. Naturally, as Monsanto leaves you with your land after they rape you, Monsanto is usually seen as the preferable "choice". As a side note, you can't not pay Monsanto by keeping some of the seeds (a practice that goes back thousands of years) and planting those next year, because they own the patent, and they will take your farm for patent infringement.

So, you work very hard, you pay very high bills for farm equipment, repairs, and services such as pesticides and herbicides (even after being screwed for the seed, you still have to buy the Roundup, and that ain't cheap). Assuming there is no blight that drives you under permanently, then you sell your crop. Let's say that you had a good year, worked hard, and produced a higher crop yield than last year. Joe Farmer is probably feeling pretty good about himself. . .right up until it comes time for the refineries to buy his goods. Since production has gone up, market forces dictate that prices drop, meaning that he actually gets paid less per bushel than last year. Now, I suppose he again has a "choice" in the matter: he can dedicate himself to producing less the next year. . .in which case the refineries, that are all usually all owned by the same distributor/company and therefore all pay the same (low) price for crops, will pay him less, in which case he'll go under, or he can produce even more. . .in which case prices drop further.

Now, how you might ask does the farmer stay in business at all, given that he is beset by big multis who seem quite intent on driving him off the land? Well, it's because of that evil "socialism" that the government does. For one thing, it pays farmers welfare outright, which they usually are in dire need of to put food on their own table. Secondly, they pay to keep farmland fallow (i.e. unproductive), which has the dual effect both of allowing the land time to replenish itself of nutrients, and helping to reduce the rate of production and buoy the price of raw goods somewhat. Of course, if you've listened at all to Rush Limbaugh, a man who doesn't know a thing about farms but knows his Friedman by heart, you'll know what an evil and stupid a practice this is, and how much his Dittoheads despise it. A third way is that the government purchases a large quantity of food every year at a set price, a practice which also stabilizes the price somewhat. Some of this food gets sent overseas, some of it goes to homeless shelters, some of it gets thrown out because we don't want a generation of people to grow up addicted to welfare.

In short, modern agriculture is a very good example of a case where market economics simply does not work, or at least, it does not work the way market economists insist it will. Farmers today are in the middle of what might be called a price trap: if they reduce their supply, they'll lose their farms that have been in their family for a century, because high prices are not translated to those few who do produce, and there are little ways to save those farms that don't produce. If they increase their supply of good and work harder, they only further drive down the price of goods and compound their misery next year. The only companies that profit are those who have intellectual property rights, and can therefore charge an arm and a leg, on those tools farmers need to produce.

Now, you could talk about "choice" in this instance, but it is a choice between losing everything and getting economically sodomized. No matter how you stack it up, the story of the American family farmer today is one of Horatio Alger in reverse, one wherein no matter how hard you work (and they do work especially hard), and no matter how productive you are (and they are incredibly productive), they simply cannot win, and they cannot generate for themselves something that market economists insist is the birthright of every "hardworking American": the right to earn enough to get by, get their children a decent education, and leave a little extra when they die. If the system cannot provide these people this, then it has failed in its duty to provide them with a reasonable chance at "the pursuit of happiness" in any meaningful sense of the term, and it must be replaced by one that does. Mindlessly quoting Leonard Peikoff and Ayn Rand does not change this fact.

What exactly do you think the modern food services sector does to farmers today? Perhaps you are unaware of how your food is grown, so I'll give you a brief rundown.

In the spring, a farmer buys his seed at ridiculous prices from Monsanto. He does this because Monsanto isolated a gene that produces necessary amino acids in most plant species, then devised a means of destroying that process in a chemical spray (Roundup), then genetically engineered farm crops that don't have this weakness (i.e. they build the same amino acid slightly differently, so Roundup doesn't kill them). Congress agreed with Monsanto that because of this hard effort, they therefore own a "patent" on the seed, and can charge whatever they want for it. Now, I suppose you could say that farmers have a "choice" in the matter, as they could get regular seed, but this runs the risk of ruining the crop through weed infestation, and your average Joe Farmer is, because of the high initial investment for the land, the seed, the machinery, etc., needed to make his farm run, as well as the low rate of return, is usually one bad crop away from losing his farm (which will then be auctioned off to Monsanto, Con-Agra, ADM, etc.). So his choice is really one of bending over the barrel for Monsanto, or getting picked clean by the bank. Naturally, as Monsanto leaves you with your land after they rape you, Monsanto is usually seen as the preferable "choice". As a side note, you can't not pay Monsanto by keeping some of the seeds (a practice that goes back thousands of years) and planting those next year, because they own the patent, and they will take your farm for patent infringement.

So, you work very hard, you pay very high bills for farm equipment, repairs, and services such as pesticides and herbicides (even after being screwed for the seed, you still have to buy the Roundup, and that ain't cheap). Assuming there is no blight that drives you under permanently, then you sell your crop. Let's say that you had a good year, worked hard, and produced a higher crop yield than last year. Joe Farmer is probably feeling pretty good about himself. . .right up until it comes time for the refineries to buy his goods. Since production has gone up, market forces dictate that prices drop, meaning that he actually gets paid less per bushel than last year. Now, I suppose he again has a "choice" in the matter: he can dedicate himself to producing less the next year. . .in which case the refineries, that are all usually all owned by the same distributor/company and therefore all pay the same (low) price for crops, will pay him less, in which case he'll go under, or he can produce even more. . .in which case prices drop further.

Now, how you might ask does the farmer stay in business at all, given that he is beset by big multis who seem quite intent on driving him off the land? Well, it's because of that evil "socialism" that the government does. For one thing, it pays farmers welfare outright, which they usually are in dire need of to put food on their own table. Secondly, they pay to keep farmland fallow (i.e. unproductive), which has the dual effect both of allowing the land time to replenish itself of nutrients, and helping to reduce the rate of production and buoy the price of raw goods somewhat. Of course, if you've listened at all to Rush Limbaugh, a man who doesn't know a thing about farms but knows his Friedman by heart, you'll know what an evil and stupid a practice this is, and how much his Dittoheads despise it. A third way is that the government purchases a large quantity of food every year at a set price, a practice which also stabilizes the price somewhat. Some of this food gets sent overseas, some of it goes to homeless shelters, some of it gets thrown out because we don't want a generation of people to grow up addicted to welfare.

In short, modern agriculture is a very good example of a case where market economics simply does not work, or at least, it does not work the way market economists insist it will. Farmers today are in the middle of what might be called a price trap: if they reduce their supply, they'll lose their farms that have been in their family for a century, because high prices are not translated to those few who do produce, and there are little ways to save those farms that don't produce. If they increase their supply of good and work harder, they only further drive down the price of goods and compound their misery next year. The only companies that profit are those who have intellectual property rights, and can therefore charge an arm and a leg, on those tools farmers need to produce.

Now, you could talk about "choice" in this instance, but it is a choice between losing everything and getting economically sodomized. No matter how you stack it up, the story of the American family farmer today is one of Horatio Alger in reverse, one wherein no matter how hard you work (and they do work especially hard), and no matter how productive you are (and they are incredibly productive), they simply cannot win, and they cannot generate for themselves something that market economists insist is the birthright of every "hardworking American": the right to earn enough to get by, get their children a decent education, and leave a little extra when they die. If the system cannot provide these people this, then it has failed in its duty to provide them with a reasonable chance at "the pursuit of happiness" in any meaningful sense of the term, and it must be replaced by one that does. Mindlessly quoting Leonard Peikoff and Ayn Rand does not change this fact.

What do you suggest be done to correct this situation?